Managing service levels provided by service providers

ABSTRACT

A method and system for managing at least one service level of a service provided by a service provider to a customer of the service provider under a service level agreement. The service level agreement is a contract between the service provider and the customer. Measurement data and at least one adjudication element associated with a service level of the at least one service level are retrieved in an electronic format. The measurement data and the at least one adjudication element are stored in a datastore. The measurement data includes at least one data point measured on a respective resource that provides the service. The retrieved measurement data are adjudicated for the service level in accordance with the at least one adjudication element such that the adjudication generates a respective adjudicated data point for each data point of the measurement data.

This application is a continuation application claiming priority to Ser.No. 11/314,373, filed Dec. 20, 2005.

CROSS REFERENCES TO RELATED INVENTIONS

This invention is related to U.S. Patent application Ser. No. 11/314,375or U.S. Pat. No. 7,228,255 (Attorney Docket No. FR920040009US1) entitled“ADJUDICATION MEANS IN METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING SERVICE LEVELSPROVIDED BY SERVICE PROVIDERS”, filed on even date herewith, and U.S.patent application Ser. No. 11/314,301 or US Patent publication USPN2006-0133296A1 (Attorney Docket No. FR920040042US1) entitled “QUALIFYINGMEANS IN METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING SERVICE LEVELS PROVIDED BYSERVICE PROVIDERS”, filed on even date herewith.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

1. Technical Field

The invention relates to service management and service presentationsystems, wherein measurement data regarding services delivered byService Providers to customers are gathered and handled to compute andcommunicate service indicators defined in service level agreements and,in particular, relates to a method for managing the service levelsprovided by Service Providers.

2. Related Art

A Service Provider (SP) provides, hosts, or manages resources for itscustomers. A resource can be a server, a particular application on aserver, a networking device, people in a help desk to answer users,people to fix problems, people to manage and change systemsconfiguration and location, . . . etc. . . . or a complex solution madeof multiple elements to accomplish or support a customer businessprocess. The Service Provider and the customer can be different firms,or different departments in a large global enterprise where departmentsare organized as support services for other departments, e.g. Marketing,Research, Sales, Production.

Normally, a Service Level Agreement (SLA) is executed (i.e., signed)between a provider and a customer to define the role of each party andto remove any ambiguity from the business relationship. Such a SLA:

-   -   Identifies the parties involved in the agreement.    -   Describes the service to be provided, and identifies in a        measurable and quantifiable manner indicators of the quality of        the service on which obligations will be set, with a possible        series of exceptions and stipulations in the way to calculate        these indicators.    -   Defines the obligations, called Service Levels (SLs), to be met        on the identified indicators, so that the expected quality of        the delivered services is set in an un-ambiguous manner.    -   Defines the agreement period for which these obligations are set        forward.    -   Pre-defines penalties to be paid/executed by the SP if the        commitment(s) is (are) not met. If a commitment is exceeded, a        reward can also be predefined, to be paid by the customer.    -   Also defines reporting policies, corrective actions, dispute        resolution procedures, termination criteria, intellectual        property.

A SLA is encountered when considering utilities to be trusted“always-on” services such as providing water, electricity, gas,telephone, e-service (e.g., e-Business On Demand), etc. In fact, a SLAexists when a specific service offer including commitments is engagedwith a customer.

By itself, a SLA does not bring any change in the level of servicedelivered. The Service Provider and/or the customer need to implement aService Level Management (SLM) program that will actually result inhigher levels of services. Indeed, a SLA only specifies the agreedcriteria for determining whether or not a set of agreed service qualitylevels are met. When not met, the issue is to determine what caused theviolation, maybe how to improve the service, or change the SLA or theprovider. The Service Level Management begins with the development ofnew service levels for a new contract and continues throughout the lifeof the contract to ensure Service Level commitments are met andmaintained.

The Service Level Management is commonly identified as the activitiesof:

-   -   negotiating, identifying and agreeing the measurable services        that support the Business Process of a customer, and defining        the SLA articulation in an offering for service with Service        Level Objectives (SLO) also known as Service Level Targets        (SLT),    -   monitoring resources used to deliver a service and capturing        data on how well these resources perform from monitors or from        logs,    -   calculating intermediate and high level Service Levels results        or scores using the predefined service parameters formulae        (called metrics) and taking into account all kinds of exceptions        that can occur, assessing attainment versus commitments and        possible penalties or rewards,    -   assessing impact of operational outages or degradations in terms        of SLAs (services) and financial impacts, alerting in real-time        of possible or effected outages, diagnosing problems for        resolution, enforcing corrective actions wherever possible to        regulate the delivery system and therefore try to proactively        guarantee the achievement of obligations,    -   reporting to the provider and the customer on real numbers        versus contractual numbers, and sealing final numbers to be used        for rebates or rewards,    -   rebating to customers when commitments are not achieved, or        rewarding the provider when commitments are exceeded, and    -   refining, improving and reviewing SLA definitions, service        levels and services that support the customer's Business        Process.

Today, there are SLA Management Systems which are automated for managingSLAs such as IBM Tivoli Service Level Advisor, Computer Associates SLM,Digital Fuel or InfoVista. They are built to accomplish, at least, aminimum set of tasks such as capturing data from monitoring systems, andthey participate or supply information to other service managementactivities such as alerting, enforcing or reporting.

However, these systems provide no complete answer to the service levelmanagement problem. Indeed, very often a piece of the solution used tosupport the customer business process which is managed by the ServiceProvider is coming from the customer, or is under the customer'sresponsibility (shared or not with the Service Provider). The means usedby these systems do not automatically take such situations into accountwhere an SLA is violated due to Customer's responsibility. In suchcases, the result must be revised to reflect the true responsibility ofthe SP only after calculation by these systems.

In addition, when a SLA is violated, or when the SP is attempting toimprove its delivered service, a lot of investigation can be done onmonitoring data, and it has to take into account the problem expressedabove. These SLA Management Systems do not provide any help on thesetasks which can then be time consuming and not very efficient, orrequire the use of other complex and costly means to implement externaltools for correlation between data and results.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method for managing at least oneservice level of a service provided by a service provider to a customerof the service provider under a service level agreement, said servicelevel agreement being a contract between the service provider and thecustomer, said method comprising:

adjudicating measurement data to correct the measurement data inaccordance with at least one adjudication element that providesinformation relating to how to correct the measurement data, saidinformation in each adjudication element identifying which data of themeasurement data is to be changed by said each adjudication element;

transforming the adjudicated measurement data into operational data byreorganizing the adjudicated measurement data into one or more groups ofdata;

evaluating the operational data by applying a formula to the operationaldata, resulting in the operational data being configured for beingsubsequently qualified; and

qualifying the operational data after said evaluating, said qualifyingcomparing the evaluated operational data with specified service leveltargets for at least one service level period during which the servicehas been performed, said qualifying identifying from said comparing datapoints selected from the group consisting of good data points of theoperational data meeting the specified service level targets, bad datapoints of the operational data not meeting the specified service leveltargets, and combinations thereof, wherein said adjudicating,transforming, evaluating, and qualifying are performed by softwaremodules of an execution engine.

The present invention provides a system for managing at least oneservice level of a service provided by a service provider to a customerof the service provider under a service level agreement, said servicelevel agreement being a contract between the service provider and thecustomer, said system comprising an execution engine for performing amethod, said method comprising:

adjudicating measurement data to correct the measurement data inaccordance with at least one adjudication element that providesinformation relating to how to correct the measurement data, saidinformation in each adjudication element identifying which data of themeasurement data is to be changed by said each adjudication element;

transforming the adjudicated measurement data into operational data byreorganizing the adjudicated measurement data into one or more groups ofdata;

evaluating the operational data by applying a formula to the operationaldata, resulting in the operational data being configured for beingsubsequently qualified; and

qualifying the operational data after said evaluating, said qualifyingcomparing the evaluated operational data with specified service leveltargets for at least one service level period during which the servicehas been performed, said qualifying identifying from said comparing datapoints selected from the group consisting of good data points of theoperational data meeting the specified service level targets, bad datapoints of the operational data not meeting the specified service leveltargets, and combinations thereof, wherein said adjudicating,transforming, evaluating, and qualifying are performed by softwaremodules of an execution engine.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a schematic block-diagram representing a processing engineused in the present invention and a sequence of steps implementedtherein.

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram illustrating the processing cycleimplemented for each service level, in accordance with embodiments ofthe present invention.

FIG. 3 is a flow chart of steps implemented in the process ofadjudicating the measurement data, in accordance with embodiments of thepresent invention.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram illustrating the process for creating arule in the step of qualifying the operational data, in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a method and system for managing theService Levels provided by Service Providers to a customer byintroducing a step of modification of input data (adjudication) takinginto consideration external information elements related to input data(adjudication elements) such as the SLA contract clauses, or such asinput from the service manager or other enterprise management systems,in order to produce new modified input data for Service Levelcalculations and then to qualify the resulting detailed calculation data(operational data) with regards to their participation in achieving ornot Service Level Targets.

The invention relates to a system for managing a service level providedby a Service Provider to a customer comprising a processing engine fortransforming measurement data into operational data using service timeprofiles and Services Level business logics, and evaluating theoperational data in order to produce Service Level results and qualifiedoperational data. The processing engine comprises means for adjudicatingthe actual measurement data before transforming them into operationaldata, this adjudication being made by using a set of adjudicationelements describing the modifications to bring, means for evaluating theoperational data by applying SLA specified service level evaluationformula, and means for qualifying operational data after they have beenevaluated, this qualification being made by comparing operational datawith qualification values determined with regard to Service Leveltargets for each business period (i.e., service level period).

A system according to the invention comprises a repository of thedescriptions of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) corresponding to eachService Level (SL), a first datastore for the actual measurement data, asecond datastore for adjudication elements, a third datastore for SLresults, operational data, adjudicated data and a processing engine forprocessing an evaluation cycle for each Service Level.

The processing engine 10, illustrated in FIG. 1, includes softwaremodules of a computer system to process the measurement data received asinput and to provide qualified operational data as output. As describedhereafter, the process performed by the processing engine 10 comprisesessentially four main steps: a step of adjudicating the inputmeasurement data (step 12); a step of transforming the adjudicated datainto operational data (step 14); a step of evaluating these operationaldata (step 16); and a step of qualifying the operational data (step 18).In other words, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the process is implemented foreach Service Level (SL) 20. First, the measurement data for the servicelevel is retrieved (step 22), such measurement data being related to theevaluated SL period (i.e., business period). Then, all the adjudicationelements related to the evaluated SL period are retrieved (step 24) fromthe second datastore for the adjudication elements and the SL evaluationcycle can be executed (step 26) as per SLA descriptions. Finally, theadjudicated data, the qualified operational data, and the SL results arestored (step 28) into the third datastore.

Referring again to FIG. 1, the step 12 of adjudicating is used tocorrect the actual measurement data to reflect the real domain ofresponsibility of the Service Provider, or to reflect reality because,for some reason, the monitors provide incorrect data. A new set ofadjudicated data is produced by this step. Although the actualmeasurement data are different from the adjudicated ones, reference datato the actual measurement data are still available to be used by othersystems requiring the original observed data, or so that changes can beaudited in support of legal purposes.

Adjudication elements 30 provide information relating to how to correctthe measurement data. The adjudication elements 30 may be sourced fromthe contract clauses 32 created at contract signing time and are validfor the whole Service Level life (exclusion cases, special conditions,limits on resources, etc.). The adjudication elements 30 may also becreated, from the adjudication console 34, at any time during theService Level life by Service Managers when executing their ServiceLevel Management tasks. Finally, the adjudication elements 30 may becreated automatically from other Enterprise Management systems 36 likeProblem and Change Management, using responsibility fields and otherinformation. The adjudication elements 30 hold a reason for themodifications they bring, which will be shown to the end customer andmust be agreed by the customer, and information about the creatorwho/which is first authenticated and goes through processes ofauthorization.

Each “modified” (i.e., adjudicated) data point contains a list ofreferences to applied adjudication elements and clauses in theirspecific order of appliance, for auditing, detailedreporting/explanation, customer relationship, legal justification andlater billing exploitation (rebate or reward). Each adjudication element30 is persistently saved/locked into an unchangeable state as soon as itis used so that no more modification can happen to the lockedadjudicated element, for guaranteeing that proper information isavailable for auditing controls.

This step also supports a parallel information management processwhereby the adjudication can be sealed so that no more modification canbe made to the Service Level result and other produced data for a givenService Level period; i.e. no more adjudication element can be createdfor this Service Level period. This corresponds to a process offinalization just before result data is sent to billing systems or usedfor other legal purposes, and after they have been reviewed and agreedupon with the customer.

Each time an SL is requested to be evaluated, the process illustrated inFIG. 3 is executed. First, all measurements are copied as adjudicatedmeasurements with an empty modification history chain (step 38), thusenabling to store a history of modifications to each measurement. Then,the process checks whether there is still an adjudication element toapply (step 40) to the set of adjudicated measurements. If it is thecase, the adjudication element is locked as mentioned above (step 42)and the identification of the measurement data to be changed from theadjudication element is got (step 44). Then, it is checked whether itcorresponds to an existing adjudicated element identification (step 46).If so, the adjudicated measurement contents are replaced by the contentsspecified in the adjudication elements and the adjudication elementidentification is added to the modification history chain (step 48). Ifit is not the case, a new adjudicated measurement is created with thisidentification and filled with the contents specified in theadjudication element and this adjudication element is added to themodification history chain (step 50). In both cases, the process islooped back to the step of checking whether there is still anadjudication element to apply (step 40).

Returning to FIG. 1, the second step 14 performed by the processingengine 10 is to transform the adjudicated measurement data intooperational data by using a service time profile 52 describing theService Level time logic (also commonly referred to as a servicecalendar and defining different periods of service with possiblydifferent SLT's) and the specific business logic defined in the ServiceLevel. The second step 14 organizes/merges the adjudicated measurementdata into a more appropriate form for evaluating attained service levelsand producing summary service level results. In addition, each producedoperational data point refers back to the original adjudicatedmeasurement data point(s) it comes from, for tracing and auditingpurposes. For example, a Service Level time logic can contain criticalperiods and off-peak hours in a month where different targets are to beachieved, or periods of no service (i.e., the service level targets maybe a function of time or time-varying during the business period(s) inwhich the measurement data was obtained). Monitoring devices and datacollection systems have no knowledge of this information which iscontract specific, and a measurement data point can cover multiple suchperiods. Appropriate sets of data points need to be produced forgeneration of service level results and comparison with differentservice level targets. And to continue the example, if measurements arecoming from different probes monitoring the same resource, they need tobe merged using a logic 54 specified in the Service Level before theycan be used for Service Level calculations when evaluating and producingsummary service level results.

The adjudicated data may be transformed into operational data by beingreorganized into one or more groups of data. As an example, the step oftransforming the adjudicated data into operational data may bedecomposed in two sub-steps. This example illustrates how adjudicateddata are propagated to the next steps of the evaluation process.

1. Merging of several measurement data (i.e., a plurality of sets ofmeasurement data) on the same monitored resource, independently from theSL Service Time Profile (or business schedule), into a single set ofdata. This part defines precisely the format of initial and transformeddata, and since they are precisely identified and defined, thedescription of the SL business logic to merge data can be itself aprogram, supplied by the people who have defined the Service Level withthe customer, or by the customer himself.

The merging step gathers adjudicated measurements per measurement typeid, and at the same time it creates a pre-operational data point (i.e.an operational data point with no business schedule state) for eachadjudicated data point, keeping the adjudicated values as they are and areference to the original adjudicated data point. Then, it selects foreach group the corresponding business logic from the SL information, andfor each group, it applies the merge logic to produce a new set ofpre-operational data points per group. How the merge logic is executedon the data points is implementation dependent: this can be aninterpreter, a dynamic call to a compiled form of the logic, etc.

As an example, 3 probes are monitoring a URL, and it is defined in theSL that an outage is declared when all 3 probes agree to see an outage,and that this outage lasts from the first probe measurement detecting itto the first probe measurement returning to normal. In this case, onlyone measurement type is seen, i.e. observed URL state, so there will beonly one group, based on a common feature of the 3 groups wherein thecommon feature is the only one measurement type. 3 measurements feedscome in, identified by their different monitoring resource ids. Tofurther simplify, each data point can only mention an outage time andduration for the given resource id/probe. There is no need to showrecords of observed normal state, since by default, what is not anoutage means is available.

After being adjudicated, these measurement data are put in one group ofmeasurement, and then merged using the supplied logic. In this case, theformal logic supplied can be:

-   -   build one data set of pre-operational points sorted by        measurement timestamp filed, from the group of data sets,    -   go through each non excluded point in sorted order, and see if        the time interval it describes (timestamp, timestamp+duration)        overlaps with the time interval of two following or simultaneous        points with different resource ids.    -   if yes, create a new operational data point from these 3 points        using the operational data point creation tool, and set the        timestamp to the one of the current point, and the duration to        the minimum of (timestamp+duration) of the 3 points minus this        point timestamp, discard the 3 operational data points used to        create this one, and insert this one in the sorted list instead,        retaining in it the list of original adjudicated data points.    -   if not, discard the data point.

2. Split of measurement data against service Time Profile periods(Service Level time logic) to create separate sets for each period. Thisstep allows applying the same process in parallel to each set of datawithout caring anymore about the Service Time Profile before getting tothe SL result comparison stage.

The split step takes as input the output of the previous step, that ispre-operational data points with no business schedule state set yet. Theexternal input of this step is a calendar showing the active businessstate for each time in the processed Service Level.

The logic of this step is:

-   -   a—for each pre-operational data point, get the business state        for the data point timestamp from the calendar, and set it for        the new operational data point,    -   b—if the point is a summary point (i.e. not a unique point in        time, but covers a time range), look at the calendar to check if        the business state changes before the end time of the interval        covered by the summary point,    -   c—if yes, create a new operational data point from this point.        Set the timestamp of this new point to the time of change of the        business state, set its business period state to this new state,        and set its end time or duration to match with the end of the        current point. Set the end time or duration of the current point        to the time of change of the business state.

Then, restart sub-step c- using the new operational data point.

As an example, if an outage lasts from 3 pm to 11 pm and the ServiceTime Profile states that in a day, 8 am to 8 pm is normal hours, andoutside of 8 am to 8 pm is off peak hours with a different target, thenthe outage needs to be split in two pieces, one from 3 pm to 8 pm withbusiness period state as “normal hours”, and one from 8 pm to 11 pm withbusiness period state as “off peak hours”.

The preceding example illustrates splitting the single set of data(resulting from the preceding merging step) into a plurality of groupsof data corresponding to a plurality of sub-periods (3 pm to 8 pm and 8pm to 11 pm in the preceding example) of the business period(s) duringwhich the measurement data was gathered.

Then, the operational data are evaluated (step 16) through a ServiceLevel evaluation using a formula 56, specifying which data are to be fedas input, what is the form of data (response time, availability, counts,states), and how the input data should be processed to produce summaryintermediate and top Service Level attainment results. There is one setof data produced per business period in the Service Time Profile. Thedata produced by this step are to be used directly for Service Levelattainment comparison, for reporting on service levels, and for input toother Enterprise Management systems. It is matched against what iscontractually committed by the provider and represents a negotiatedvalue and quality of the delivered service. The operational dataresulting from the evaluation step 16 are configured for beingqualified.

The operational data resulting from adjudicated data are qualified (step18) with regards to their participation in achieving or not achievingthe Service Level targets 58 for each business period during which theservice(s) provided by the Service Provider has been performed. Thequalifying step identifies good operational data points with labels like“In Profile” (=contributes to good SL result) or bad operational datapoints with labels like “Out Of Profile” (=contributes to degrading SLresult). The qualifying step also determines deltas to breaking limit(i.e., differentials by which the identified data points differ from thespecified service level targets). The deltas to breaking limit (i.e.,differentials) are used to determine a margin by which the identifiedgood and/or bad data points contribute to the high level SL results;i.e., contribute to meeting or not meeting the specified service leveltargets (for example, time remaining before “Out Of Profile” orviolation for problem resolution times). The deltas to breaking limit(i.e., differentials) and the margin may be stored in the thirddatastore.

This enriching of operational data is to be used by the Service ProviderManaged Operations people and by their automated systems to continuouslytrack the detailed contribution to the end to end final service level,to understand their impact on it, and to help them prioritize work andactions in order to guarantee the end to end service level. As anexample of the latter, the time remaining before violation for problemsresolution is an information to be used to understand which problems tosolve first in the list of currently open problems. As an example of theformer, showing which detailed metrics contribute to SL resultdegradation helps to pinpoint quickly in the input data set what are thepoints to improve, and to control the effect of corrective actions. Thisis possible because each operational data point points back toadjudicated data, which in turn has in its history the list ofmodifications made to the initial data points. In addition, the delta tobreaking limit information gives an idea of the amount of effort tospend to improve the service level, and of where to concentrate to yieldbest benefits.

The qualification implementation process requires the creation of a rulefor each type of operational data which is used to qualify them. Thisresults in a set of qualification rules specific to each Service Level.Each operational data produced by the previous steps in the ServiceLevel evaluation cycle has a data code associated with it that is usedto retrieve the qualification rule to apply for this service level andfor the business period it is in.

These rules can be in executable code and they are executed on eachoperational data at qualification time, or they can be description oftests to be done and conditions to be met and they are interpreted atqualification time also. Each rule is dependent on the service levelevaluation formula and target. There can be some commonality betweenmultiple service levels or not, and in case of commonality, the rulescan be shared.

The process for creating a rule is illustrated in FIG. 4, for eachoperational data, a rule identification is got 62 in a table of rulesusing the operational data type id, the service level id and thebusiness period id. The rule is then executed or interpreted 64 incomparison with the operational data. Then, it is checked 66 whether theresult is positive. If it is the case, the operational data arequalified as “In Profile” 68 and, if not, the operational data are “OutOf Profile” 70. The result is stored as delta (i.e., differential) totarget, to be used as explained above.

For example, the SLA defines that 95% of URL response time measurementsshould be less than 2 seconds. Operational data produced by this SLevaluation is a list of response time measurements spread over theevaluation period and the 95th percentile value of the measurement list.In this case, it is possible to use one qualification rule only commonto both types of operational data set. This rule is to compare theresponse time operational data value with 2 seconds and to answerpositively (In Profile) if less than or equal or else negatively (Out OfProfile), and to store the delta in the operational data point.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for managing at least one service levelof a service provided by a service provider to a customer of the serviceprovider under a service level agreement, said service level agreementbeing a contract between the service provider and the customer, saidmethod comprising: retrieving, by a processor, measurement data in anelectronic format and at least one adjudication element associated witha service level of the at least one service level, said measurement dataand the at least one adjudication element being stored in a datastorecoupled to the processor, said measurement data comprising at least onedata point measured on a respective resource that provides the service;and said processor adjudicating the retrieved measurement data for theservice level in accordance with the at least one adjudication elementsuch that said adjudicating generates a respective adjudicated datapoint for each data point of the measurement data.
 2. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the at least one adjudication element providesinformation relating to how to correct the measurement data for theservice level, and wherein the information in each adjudication elementidentifies which data of the measurement data is to be changed by eachadjudication element.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least oneadjudication element comprises a clause that was in the service levelagreement when the service level agreement was executed.
 4. The methodof claim 1, wherein the at least one adjudication element comprises afirst adjudication element that was agreed upon between the serviceprovider and the customer after the service level agreement wasexecuted.
 5. The method of claim 1, said method further comprisinggenerating a modification history chain by: said processor initiallyestablishing the modification history chain as being empty; and saidprocessor adding an identification of each adjudicated element appliedto each data point of the measurement data to the modification historychain.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein each adjudication element islocked into an unchangeable state after being used in said adjudicating.7. The method of claim 1, said method further comprising: said processortransforming the adjudicated measurement data into operational data byreorganizing the adjudicated measurement data into one or more groups ofdata; said processor evaluating the operational data by applying aformula to the operational data, resulting in the operational data beingconfigured for being subsequently qualified; and said processorqualifying the operational data after said evaluating, said qualifyingcomparing the evaluated operational data with specified service leveltargets for at least one service level period during which the servicehas been performed, said qualifying identifying from said comparing datapoints selected from the group consisting of good data points of theoperational data meeting the specified service level targets, bad datapoints of the operational data not meeting the specified service leveltargets, and combinations thereof.
 8. The method of claim 7, wherein thespecified service level targets are time varying during the at least oneservice level period, and wherein the method further comprises: saidprocessor sealing said adjudicating for a first service level period ofthe at least one service level period such that additional adjudicatingcannot be subsequently performed for the first service level period. 9.The method of claim 7, wherein the measurement data comprises sets ofmeasurement data on a same monitored resource, wherein the adjudicateddata comprises sets of adjudicated data corresponding to the sets ofmeasurement data on the same monitored resource, and wherein saidtransforming the adjudicated measurement data into the operational datacomprises: merging said sets of adjudicated data into a single set ofdata based on a feature that is common to the sets of adjudicated data;and splitting the single set of data into a plurality of groups of datacorresponding to a plurality of sub-periods of the at least one servicelevel period, wherein the one or more groups of data consists of theplurality of groups of data.
 10. The method of claim 7, wherein saidqualifying comprises: determining differentials by which the identifieddata points differ from the specified service level targets;determining, from the differentials, a margin by which the identifieddata points contribute to meeting or not meeting the specified servicelevel targets; and storing the differentials, the margin, ordifferentials and the margin in a datastore.
 11. A system for managingat least one service level of a service provided by a service providerto a customer of the service provider under a service level agreement,said service level agreement being a contract between the serviceprovider and the customer, said system comprising an execution enginefor performing a method, said method comprising: retrieving, by aprocessor, measurement data in an electronic format and at least oneadjudication element associated with a service level of the at least oneservice level, said measurement data and the at least one adjudicationelement being stored in a datastore coupled to the processor, saidmeasurement data comprising at least one data point measured on arespective resource that provides the service; and said processoradjudicating the retrieved measurement data for the service level inaccordance with the at least one adjudication element such that saidadjudicating generates a respective adjudicated data point for each datapoint of the measurement data.
 12. The system of claim 11, wherein theat least one adjudication element provides information relating to howto correct the measurement data for the service level, and wherein theinformation in each adjudication element identifies which data of themeasurement data is to be changed by each adjudication element.
 13. Thesystem of claim 11, wherein the at least one adjudication elementcomprises a clause that was in the service level agreement when theservice level agreement was executed.
 14. The system of claim 11,wherein the at least one adjudication element comprises a firstadjudication element that was agreed upon between the service providerand the customer after the service level agreement was executed.
 15. Thesystem of claim 11, said method further comprising generating amodification history chain by: said processor initially establishing themodification history chain as being empty; and said processor adding anidentification of each adjudicated element applied to each data point ofthe measurement data to the modification history chain.
 16. The systemof claim 11, wherein each adjudication element is locked into anunchangeable state after being used in said adjudicating.
 17. The systemof claim 11, said method further comprising: said processor transformingthe adjudicated measurement data into operational data by reorganizingthe adjudicated measurement data into one or more groups of data; saidprocessor evaluating the operational data by applying a formula to theoperational data, resulting in the operational data being configured forbeing subsequently qualified; and said processor qualifying theoperational data after said evaluating, said qualifying comparing theevaluated operational data with specified service level targets for atleast one service level period during which the service has beenperformed, said qualifying identifying from said comparing data pointsselected from the group consisting of good data points of theoperational data meeting the specified service level targets, bad datapoints of the operational data not meeting the specified service leveltargets, and combinations thereof.
 18. The system of claim 17, whereinthe specified service level targets are time varying during the at leastone service level period, and wherein the method further comprises: saidprocessor sealing said adjudicating for a first service level period ofthe at least one service level period such that additional adjudicatingcannot be subsequently performed for the first service level period. 19.The system of claim 17, wherein the measurement data comprises sets ofmeasurement data on a same monitored resource, wherein the adjudicateddata comprises sets of adjudicated data corresponding to the sets ofmeasurement data on the same monitored resource, and wherein saidtransforming the adjudicated measurement data into the operational datacomprises: merging said sets of adjudicated data into a single set ofdata based on a feature that is common to the sets of adjudicated data;and splitting the single set of data into a plurality of groups of datacorresponding to a plurality of sub-periods of the at least one servicelevel period, wherein the one or more groups of data consists of theplurality of groups of data.
 20. The system of claim 17, wherein saidqualifying comprises: determining differentials by which the identifieddata points differ from the specified service level targets;determining, from the differentials, a margin by which the identifieddata points contribute to meeting or not meeting the specified servicelevel targets; and storing the differentials, the margin, ordifferentials and the margin in a datastore.